Re: Questions for candidates - board processes & significance

[Dave Neary <dneary gnome org>]

Hi,

Shaun McCance wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 16:11 +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
>> 2. Board meetings are minuted, and these minutes are published 
>> regularly. However, the board also increasingly makes decisions on 
>> board-list with the Apache +1/0/-1 convention. Would you support the 
>> minuting of these votes, including recording any -1 votes?
> 
> As I mentioned in another email, I get the impression that
> most decisions don't even come down to a vote. Board members
> seem to just come to an agreement. I don't think there's any
> benefit to mandating more process in those cases.
> 
> When things do come to a vote, yes, I believe votes should
> be publicly recorded (unless the entire topic has to be kept
> secret for some reason). Board members act on behalf of the
> foundation membership. Their votes should be representative
> of what the foundation wants, so I don't think they have a
> right to a secret ballot.

I bring this up, because there have been 1 or 2 things in which I've
been involved this last year where I have heard on the grapevine that
some board members disagreed. Disagreement in a board is healthy, and I
definitely don't want to have an expectation that everyone follows the
party line. However, when deciding (for example) whether to vote for
someone or not, I think it's important that I know where they stand on
the Big Stuff (like budget allocations, hiring decisions, etc). So I
think it's important that if something happens by majority decision that
those decisions be reported back to the membership.

Thanks for your answers Shaun! (and Emily & Lionel).

Cheers,
Dave.

-- 
Dave Neary
GNOME Foundation member
dneary gnome org